I don't know. From that demo, I really doubt that the tiled interface will ever provide enough functionality for these apps to be really useful or as full-featured as their real desktop counterparts.<p>I see this tile-thingy more as an additional overview-shell, but the real work will remain to be done in the classic apps. This is more comparable to the Mac Dashboard widgets than to a complete UI redesign.<p>As such, I see no problem in doing these widgets in HTML/JS which is what we have used ever since. The "real" applications will still be done in whatever technology is available under windows.<p>Of course, everything is just speculation. I just know that I'm sure as hell never going to use a touch interface on my desktop PC nor drag around tiles with the mouse trying to fake enough inertia to get the scrolling to go.
Microsoft's biggest problem is how fractured this new consumer-centric approach is inevitably going to feel for everyone, though devs are probably going to be hit the most, and that spells trouble.<p>The problem is that Windows has a slew of legacy API's, languages, and frameworks that you can't get rid of without undermining the existing application ecosystem that made it popular. And it seems like they're not willing to get rid of any of that for the new world of web/mobile apps, like Apple did with flying colors. Instead they're shoehorning yet another framework onto an already bloated platform.<p>So in the end they're trying to apply a lesson from Apple (touch, interactivity) with total disregard for why it worked (simplicity, seamlessness, usability). A recipe for failure if I ever saw one. Ballmer still doesn't get why iPhone won the mobile wars.
<p><pre><code> *We put up with Windows so we can use C#,
F# and VS2010*
</code></pre>
It's not like you won't be able to use .NET - they are just adding IE9 into the equation, so I don't understand what this "fret" is about.<p>This is what happens when developers believe blindly in promises, instead of focusing on getting the job done with minimal friction.<p>Of course Microsoft was going to let go of the .NET "vision" at some point, as .NET is not applicable to everything. If you believed that by learning .NET you are going to have a unified platform to be able to use it for everything, that's your problem.<p>It's like believing .NET's CLR is a general-purpose VM. Well, it ain't. Yes it provides some flexibility, but you'll never have Haskell on it. Or a reasonable LUA implementation for that matter.<p>And in my view, basing this new UI on IE9 and Javascript/HTML is a move in the right direction for Microsoft, one of the few I've seen in years - I mean, why reinvent the wheel instead of leveraging the knowledge of lots of outside developers? Last time I checked, even Adobe AIR had better penetration than Silverlight (total, not counting the number of out-of-browser Silverlight apps or people that use such apps).
As a .NET developer, I'm not in any way worried that they're going to replace the .NET framework as their primary enterprise platform, with javascript.<p>For this tile UI, I'm a little surprised - if only because it's quite different from how WinPhone7 works (isn't it?).
All this fear is coming from weak-knee programmers and people who love to bask in FUD.<p>You don't build applications with logic and complicated function out of HTML and JS. Not today, not tomorrow.<p>My (and your) 10k, 100k, 200k line C# applications are not writable in JS.<p>Sure, there is GMail and Node.JS as examples. But thats kind of a niche compared to everything else.<p>HTML and JS are just going to be another way do to UI, and nothing else. You'll still need to write the C# app and use .NET to do the backend.<p>HTML/JS will be another option right along with XAML/WPF and SilverLight.
As a .NET dev, I'm not worried, MS has invested really heavily into .NET, it's everywhere in their eco-system now. Even if the preferred way to build <i>some</i> desktop apps was HTML/JS, .NET is still going to be in use in many other places.<p>Even if they did ditch .NET (which I don't think they will), it would take years to do; plenty of time to move to something else ;)
The problem with WPF/Silverlight is that Microsoft never managed to make it feel fast enough to compete with native code. The Windows Phone 7 UI is praised because of its excellent performance. Now imagine that Microsoft would have used WPF instead. Because of the Silverlight requirement it's impossible for third party app developers to reach same level of performance as build-in services.<p>I would like to see a new UI framework that everyone inside Microsoft feels is good enough to use. And give third parties equal access.
Anyone who has worked enterprise in the eastern half of the U.S. knows better than to be worried by this. There are so many mission-critical business applications written in C#, and even VB.net, that the idea of .NET jobs going away in the next 15 years, even if MS were to abandon the product today, is nil.<p>Where I live I would guess that at least 90% of job postings for programmers are .NET.
Last time Silverlight was in the headlines it was because, surprise, MS was pushing HTML5/JS over it. Same deal here, I can't say I'm too shocked this time.<p>Although now their API situation is more of a mess, with normal native APIs plus HTML5 for Windows now, then there's Silverlight for Windows Phone 7. Makes you wonder if they didn't have any foresight about this decision when choosing WP7's set of APIs.
The idea that Microsoft is going to go the IOS route is so completely contrary to the interests of their primary customer bases - business and enterprise - that it is only the constant call of the techpress for Microsoft to be more like Google or Apple which gives the idea credence.<p>Windows has had HTML and script based Apps in the form of HTA's for a long time (i.e. IE5). So in many ways the buzz seems more of a marketing coup than a revolutionary new approach (aimed at getting consumers to enable scripting on desktop installations). I suspect Silverlight to be deprecated as a web technology because it has many of the same issues as Flash (for which it was always intended as an alternative/replacement), but .NET is here to stay. It is .NET that facilitates the expanding ability of Windows to run on diverse architectures - since Windows Vista the Windows OS is essentially .NET for many purposes and Windows 8 and WP7 are extensions of that roadmap. A roadmap which, again, is business focused and tailored to provide stability.<p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536496%28v=vs.85%29.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536496%28v=vs.85%2...</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application</a><p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/200874" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/kb/200874</a>
Windows developers have a bad reputation for being fixated on one or two programming languages and tools at the expense of learning other platforms. Can't say I would feel sorry for them if any of this were to be true.<p>There's something to be said about breadth versus depth.
I think the bigger issue here is how Microsoft is handling the dissemination of coming changes. Why on earth say nothing except 'please wait until september'. Between now and September I could learn object-c and move to another platform. Just a really unwise approach. At the minimum they should be saying, '...your investment in the Microsoft stack will not be lost, C#, F# and VisualStudio are important technologies that we are committed too...'.<p>So here we are left to speculate as to what happens next. I can't believe they would simply toss all the technology out - what's the alternative for true native apps, pure C++?<p>As far as the HTML5/Javascript thing goes - hell yeah, I switched to using html(4/5)/javascript and css(2/3) for my front-end code over a year ago. I think this is actually a pretty shrewd move and likely will be more a focus for the tablet and phone developer side allowing easier porting across all the emerging platforms. The fact that I may be able to use that same tech for Windows desktop apps is nice bonus, but like we all saw on iOS - nothing beats native for the best client experience, at least for now.
What's to stop you from putting a Silverlight APP in the tiled interface? Silverlight runs OK now in HTML pages so in theory it should work in the HTML + JS Win8 box as well :)
I love the first comment in the original thread, specifically:<p>>“Microsoft has first class cross-platform application framework called Silverlight and they want us to right freaking javascript.”<p>Yeh, because js isn't a first class, cross platform language...
This is a market strategy. Microsoft knows desktop apps, WPF, Silverlight are losing the battle against HTML5/CSS/JS based apps, the most obvious movement Microsoft could have done is create a 2 minute video of their next OS and say "hey Web Developers, you can use your web skills here too".<p>Also, this video says nothing about the architecture behind this "Launcher"(because that what it looks like), there are a lot of possibilities. May be IE10 has some kind of <protected-frame> element so you can specify certain permissions like network access, file system access and stuff, maybe it requires a manifest in which you can specify what "DOM manipulation technology" do you want to use, the most obvious options are:<p>- A Javascript (IE9 code-name "Chakra" engine) based file.
- A JScript.NET file.
- Any DLR based language file.
- Any .NET assembly decorated with some fashion attributes like <Windows8Launcher.TileDomBehindAttribute(typeof(MyTileHandler))> or something which you can easily compile with any .NET compiler like C#, VB.NET, C++ CLI, etc.<p>May be developing in HTML is completely optional and each Tile can be developed using Silverlight or Windows Presentation Foundation technologies... we don't know.<p>We know that Microsoft is a legacy company, they will not abandon .NET anytime soon.
.NET is not going away anytime soon. If anything I feel this further deprecates silverlight. There is no way that MS expects the majority of apps to be written in HTML+JS, it's just an option to make it easy for those used to HTML+JS to write apps on the platform, in the same vein as writing an HTML+JS app for iPhone. Most serious Windows applications are written in C++ for Win32 anyway, VS which is becoming more and more .NET everyday still has heavy roots in COM/Win32. Office integration is still best done in C++. No these apps aren't whats fueling the consumer web but they make big bucks for the vendors who write them, and ensure platform lockin to Windows as MS tries to transition away from their desktop monopoly.<p>MS is not stupid enough to pull another Vista and make apps that used to work not work. Even if MS were very serious about transitioning everything to HTML+JS you'd be looking at a 10-15 year timeline. The day you see Office written in HTML+JS is the day to start worrying if you're a Win32 / .NET app developer.
.NET bleh. HTML5 is the future, cross platform. JavaScript will be made into a robust language in the coming years, with classes, etc.<p>The crappy DOM will probably change for the better, HTML5 apps will run as local apps and tap into the native APIs of the system.<p>Client = HTML5 + JS , yes we dont need .NET here, where .NET/C/C# and others will be used, will be in the backend, frontend/client can be perfectly made with HTML5 + JS.<p>The only exception is perhaps games and apps such as Photoshop, but 90% of enterprise stuff that is simply thin clients speaking to a big backend database+etc can be perfectly made with HTML5.<p>HTML5 is here to stay, .NET will be the exception. (Games/Heavy backend/3D apps/Photoshop) sort of things... nothing more.<p>Or who knows, maybe in the future with WebGL and what not even some more complicated games can be made just with HTML5.
This does remind me of the "no-native-.NET-support" Windows Sidebar attempt. It failed in the end, but even there one of the first things we did was find a way to host .NET elements in the sidebar (and it was possible, but you had to jump through many hoops).
We will have to wait and see, but I can't imagine there will not be a way to host Silverlight in one of the tiles.<p>Also this whole "every app is going to be html + javascript" does remind me of the earlies Apple IPhone developer offerings.
I can only imagine the turf wars raging right now about this apparent dichotomy between classic and tiled. I assume my friends there are not having a very happy day.
The web-based API looks like the Active Channels 2ND attempt, there's nothing like history to get a glimpse of the future. [1]<p>[1]: <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768176.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768176.aspx</a>
Microsoft seems to have lost all sense of direction. I just see them launching a bunch of superficially considered me-too initiatives instead of anything meaty. They still are the gorilla, but it almost looks like they've given up. Is it just me?
That shows the risks of vendor lock in. Although I don't believe MS will replace .NET with html5/js in any regard it shows pretty good why you shouldn't commit too much to vendor specific/centric technologies.
I don't see what the problem is. It's a logical step and it's better for the mind than filling it up with .Net APIs.<p>I think the most vitriolic responses have been from people who have either been brainwashed by WebForms or never had to do anything on the web before.